Consisting of the transcript (Tr.), Government’s exhibits (GE) 1-7, and Applicant’s exhibits (AE) A-D. AE C1
was timely received post-hearing; AE D was untimely, but Department Counsel did not object to its admission.
DOHA acted under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry (February2
20, 1960), as amended; Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security
Clearance Review Program  (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG)
effective within the DoD on 1 September 2006. 
1
            
            
            
            
     
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
XXXXXXXXXX, Xxxxxxx Xxxxx )     ISCR Case No. 10–06905
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Julie R. Mendez, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
METZ, John Grattan, Jr., Administrative Judge:
Based on the record in this case,  Applicant’s clearance is granted.1
On 22 September 2011, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
sent Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under
Guideline F, Financial Considerations.  Applicant timely answered the SOR and2
requested a hearing. DOHA assigned the case to me 29 November 2011, and I
convened a hearing 5 January 2012. DOHA received the transcript 12 January 2012.
Although Applicant only documented the two $112 payments, I infer that she made the other required3
payments because I believe the creditor would not have agreed to the substantial discount on the remaining
balance that it made in January 2012, to be paid over the next 12 months, if Applicant had not established a
satisfactory record of payment.
2
Findings of Fact
Applicant denied the SOR allegations, except for SOR 1.h, 1.i, and 1.o. She is a
37-year-old security officer employed by a defense contractor since August 2009.
Except for the period of June-August 2009, Applicant has been continuously employed
since at least March 1999. Applicant’s spouse of nine years left her in August 2007. She
claims (Tr. 26) that most of the debts belong to him, although she acknowledges that
she co-signed for the debt. She did not think she should have to pay, so she did not.
She is now trying to resolve the debt because of her security clearance, which was first
granted in June 2009. However, she appears to have been working on her delinquent
debts since her interview with a Government investigator in March 2010. She reported
financial difficulties on her January 2010 clearance application (GE 1).
The SOR alleges, and Government exhibits (GE 2-3) substantiate, 14 delinquent
debts totaling over $21,000. Applicant admits two debts (SOR 1.h,1.i) totaling nearly
$11,000, along with a Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge in August 2005 (SOR 1.o). 
Applicant documented that SOR debt 1.a was included in her Chapter 7
bankruptcy (SOR 1.o), although she has yet to convince the collection agent of that fact.
Applicant’s daughter claims to be responsible for SOR debt 1.b, although Applicant is a
joint owner on the account (AE B).
In July 2011 (GE 4), Applicant was at least two months behind on SOR debt 1.e.
In September 2011 (Answer), Applicant brought the account current, but by November
2011, she was a month behind (AE B). In July 2011, the creditor at SOR debt 1.h
proposed resolution of the $8,494 remaining balance—a balance over $1,000 more
than alleged in the SOR. Applicant claimed that she had been paying $112 monthly
since April 2011, but documented only a $112 payment in September 2011 (AE B). She
later documented a payment in December 2011 (AE C). She also documented (AE D)
that she renegotiated the settlement agreement in February 2012 to settle the remaining
$7,900 balance for a total payment of $2,818, paid in $235 monthly installments from
February 2012 through January 2013.3
Applicant claimed that she had been paying on SOR debt 1.I since February
2011. Her Answer documented bi-weekly recurring payments in May and June 2011,
and so presumably the recurring payment of $75 every two weeks in December 2011
and January 2012 (AE B) was also for SOR debt 1.i. However, she has not provided
any documentation connecting those payments to the debt.
Applicant documented (GE 4) that she settled SOR debt 1.j in May 2011. She
also documented that in June 2011, a creditor offered to settle an outstanding debt for
3
seven payments totaling $910. She later documented (AE C) that six payments had
been made, with only a January 2012 payment remaining. However, the named creditor
and the original creditor listed on the letters do not correspond to any of the named
creditors in the SOR, and Applicant has not provided the thread to connect the
payments to the SOR. She annotated the June 2011 settlement offer to indicate that the
account was for both SOR debt 1.j and SOR debt 1.m. She annotated the January 2012
creditor letter to suggest it might be for SOR debt 1.j. She documented (GE 4) settling
SOR debt 1.k for about 25% of the amount owed in March 2011. Applicant documented
(AE B) paying $113 on SOR debt 1.l in September 2011, and paying the $50 debt at
SOR 1.n in December 2011.
Applicant has not addressed, or documented addressing, three medical bills
(SOR 1.c, 1.d, 1.g) totaling $1,000. Nor has she addressed a delinquent telephone
account (SOR 1.f) totaling nearly $600.
Applicant’s credit reports show several accounts (not alleged in the SOR) that
were previously past due, but were now current. In her answer and her exhibits, she
documented other delinquent debts that she had satisfied or brought current. It appears
that she began addressing her debts around the time she met with the government
investigator in March 2010, although she may have taken some action before then. She
has not obtained financial counseling or taken any financial management training. She
presented no evidence of a budget.
Applicant has excellent work and character references (AE A). Although they all
recommend her for her security clearance, none of them appears to be aware of her
financial issues.
Policies
The adjudicative guidelines (AG) list factors for evaluating a person’s suitability
for access to classified information. Administrative judges must assess disqualifying and
mitigating conditions under each issue fairly raised by the facts and situation presented.
Each decision must also reflect a fair, impartial, and commonsense consideration of the
factors listed in AG ¶ 2(a). Any one disqualifying or mitigating condition is not, by itself,
conclusive. However, specific adjudicative guidelines should be followed where a case
can be measured against them, as they represent policy guidance governing access to
classified information. Considering the SOR allegations and the evidence as a whole,
the relevant adjudicative guideline is Guideline F (Financial Considerations).
Security clearance decisions resolve whether it is clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant or continue an applicant’s security clearance. The Government
must prove, by substantial evidence, controverted facts alleged in the SOR. If it does,
the burden shifts to applicant to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the Government’s case.
Because no one has a right to a security clearance, the applicant bears a heavy burden
of persuasion.
See, Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).4
¶19.(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; ( c) a history of not meeting financial obligations;5
¶20 (a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such circumstances that6
it is unlikely to recur . . . 
¶20.(b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control . . . and7
the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances;
4
Persons with access to classified information enter into a fiduciary relationship
with the Government based on trust and confidence. Therefore, the Government has a
compelling interest in ensuring each applicant possesses the requisite judgement,
reliability, and trustworthiness of those who must protect national interests as their own.
The “clearly consistent with the national interest” standard compels resolution of any
reasonable doubt about an applicant’s suitability for access in favor of the Government.4
Analysis
The Government established a case for disqualification under Guideline F by
showing Applicant’s substantial delinquent debt, despite a Chapter 7 bankruptcy
discharge in August 2005. Applicant has a history of financial difficulties going back to at
least 2007.  Although she has made considerable progress on her debts, Department5
Counsel correctly argues that the remaining issue is whether that progress is enough to
overcome the security concerns raised by her financial situation. On balance, I conclude
that Applicant mitigated the security concerns.
Financial considerations mitigating factors provide mixed help to Applicant. Her
financial difficulties are both recent and multiple, and the circumstances they occurred
under are not unusual.  The problems are at least partly due to circumstances beyond6
her control (separation), although her petulance in delaying addressing what she admits
was joint debt because she thought her husband should pay it was, at least initially, not
responsible.7
However, she appears to have started addressing her delinquent accounts well
before the SOR was issued, because the credit reports and Applicant’s exhibits show
several accounts that were delinquent but are now current. Her evidence shows that of
the four largest debts alleged, one (SOR 1.a) was included in her bankruptcy, one (SOR
1.b) belongs to her daughter, one (SOR 1.h) has been on a satisfactory repayment plan
since April 2011, and one (SOR 1.I) appears to be on a repayment plan. Six other debts
have been addressed by payment, settlement, or partial payments. Only four accounts
remain unaddressed. Applicant has not addressed, or documented addressing, three
medical bills (SOR 1.c, 1.d, 1.g) totaling $1,000. Nor has she addressed a delinquent
telephone account (SOR 1.f) totaling nearly $600.
¶20.(c)  the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and there are clear indications8
that the problem is being resolved or is under control;
¶20.(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.9
ISCR Case No. 07-06482 (App. Bd. 21 May 2008).10
5
Nevertheless, she continues to make progress on her delinquent debt. In this
regard her efforts to deal with her delinquent debts are largely satisfactory. While she
has had no credit counseling or financial management training, and does not appear to
have a budget covering her day-to-day finances and her repayment plans, there is clear
evidence that she is making progress on bringing her financial problems under control.8
Once she got over her anger at her husband refusing to address his share of the joint
debt, the payments that have been paid have been paid largely in a timely, good-faith
manner.  The comparatively small balances that remain to be addressed do not appear9
to me to be unmanageable given the progress Applicant has made to date. The Appeal
Board has made it clear that an Applicant need not have paid every debt alleged in the
SOR, need not pay the SOR debts first, and need not be paying on all debts
simultaneously. Applicant need only establish that there is a credible and realistic plan
to resolve the financial problems, accompanied by significant actions to implement the
plan.  Applicant has such a plan. Accordingly, I resolve Guideline F for Applicant.10
Consideration of the whole-person factors confirms this result.
Formal Findings
Paragraph 1. Guideline F: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs a-o: For Applicant
Conclusion
Under the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for
Applicant. Clearance granted.  
                                              
                                             
JOHN GRATTAN METZ, JR
Administrative Judge